Taupati v The Queen

[2017] VSCA 106

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Sentence
4. › Sentencing in absence of offender
5. › Offender absconding during jury deliberations
6. › Whether waiver of right to be present
7. › Whether discretion to proceed to sentence properly exercised
8. › Whether power should be exercised 'sparingly'
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Non-parole period
4. › Proportion of head sentence
5. › Whether 78 per cent non-parole period excessive
6. › Whether high non-parole period reserved for cases of negative finding on rehabilitation
7. › Whether reasons required for non-parole period outside usual range
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Manifest excess
4. › Affray
5. › Recklessly causing serious injury
6. › Group violence
7. › Complicity in stabbing
8. › Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 17, 320

Quick Take

Where an offender absconds during or after trial, the power to proceed to sentence in absentia need not be exercised 'sparingly'; the question is whether the circumstances of the case favour finality. A non-parole period exceeding 75% of the head sentence may be imposed where the sentencing judge is unable to make any positive finding on rehabilitation due to the offender's absence, without requiring a negative finding on rehabilitation.